Talk:Anuradhapura kingdom

Renaming to Anuradhapura Kingdom

I have re-moved the article to Anuradhapura Kingdom from Kingdom of Anuradhapura since the former is the name used in almost all the sources given. It is also the most commonly used name in Sri Lanka. Therefore I feel, according to WP:COMMONNAME, this is where it should be. It would be appreciated if the matter is discussed before moving, since the name is given for a reason. ≈ Chamal ^talk 02:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, yes I see your point.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anuradhapura Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. Overall this article is very good. I am dividing my concerns up per good article criteria:

Prose

• Overall the prose seems satisfactory. Ideas were expressed clearly and succintly. I will run through and double check for grammar/spelling issues.
• For a relatively short article, the latter part of the first paragraph of the lead seems to go into excessive detail about the impact of Buddhism.
  • How is it now? I have removed some information from there that seemed to be not really necessary. But Buddhism is pretty much synonymous with the kingdom, as the article shows :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

References

• On first glance, refs appear fine. All online sources are to reliable publications.
• Since I am unfamiliar with some of the publishers, can you tell me more about the following?
  • Ratna Publishers, M. D. Gunasena and Company, Sridevi Printers

Coverage

• Judging this article on other GA and FA empire/civ articles, there don't appear to be any gaps in coverage.

Neutrality and stability

• There is no evidence of any edit wars or substantial change in content in the article history; article appears stable, and no glaring POV issues leap out.

Images

• File:Sanghamitta.jpg and File:Buddha tooth pilgrims.jpg both have the same issues; the author and source are given as the uploader, but he or she is not the original artist and source; the location and original artist should be mentioned here. Also, explanation should be given (in the permission field) as to why the source the image is derived from is public domain. I'm also unsure that the licenses are valid, but I am checking on that.
  • Both removed, since the paintings were created 1930-1940, making it a borderline case on the 70 years margin. Since we can't be sure it's before 1939, I'm removing those. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• File:Kahavanu o.jpg the source mentions nothing about freely licensing the image, appears to be a copyright violation.
  • Removed.
• File:Sigiriya ladies 01.jpg same PD issue possible as with the other wall paintings.
  • Ok, I contacted an experienced user (User:Elcobbola) and he basically agreed with me. In short, you need to strip out all the author licensing information (because that's not germane for Wikipedia/Wikimedia purposes) and provide justification as to why they are public domain, then tag them as such;[1] the best example I could find on short notice was File:1099jerusalem.jpg, but that gives you a rough idea. Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I've discussed with a commons user on IRC, who thinks that {{PD-Art}} may not be appropriate, and also said there may be problems with 3D. I have images that I have taken myself; I will find one and upload it. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      •  Done All requested improvements made, I think. Anything else? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I'll read through it again and hopefully get back to you today. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

With the above issues, I am placing the article on hold. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review :) I'll get working on the article soon. About the publishers:

• M. D. Gunasena is one of the oldest and most well known publishing firms in Sri Lanka. Their website is here.
• Ratna (actual spelling is Rathna - I will correct it in the article) is also a leading publisher in the country. [2] & [3] both mention Gunasena and Rathna.
• Sridevi is an Indian publisher, so I don't know much about that. I'll see what I can find. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I've mixed up there. It's actually a Sri Lankan publisher, but not a large one. Not many online sources on that, but [4] & [5] mention some books published by them. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Ok, the refs look good at a glance, but I'm not the best judge of foreign presses :) With the images and other concerns raised addressed, I will pass. Good work! Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Language

Sinhalese language history starts from 3rd century CE as Elu language. But Anuradhapura Kingdom's period is 377 BC–1017. So, how can you say that language of the kingdom was Sinhalese? Also, there were Tamil kings ruled for certain period. Edit the article as per natural point of view otherwise the article will be questioned. --AntanO 15:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Antan, Could you pls give me reliable refs to prove this sentence. Sinhalese language history starts from 3rd century CE as Elu language. Because Sri Lanka has Inscriptions belonging to 2-1 centuries BC, written in Brahmin scripts and old Sinhalese language. In the Anuradhapura period we had foreign invaders and they were not considered natives.--L Manju (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this on Elu Wiki article. Eḷu, also Hela or Helu, is a Middle Indo-Aryan language or Prakrit of the 3rd century BCE. It is ancestral to the Sinhalese and Dhivehi languages. But you have said Sinhalese language history starts from 3rd century CE as Elu language. Is there any confusion between BCE & CE?--L Manju (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

See Sinhalese_language#History. If it wrong, I would like to hear the history of Sinhalese language. Or, what is the period of Sinhalese language? What do you mean by native? Many of them came from India. I consider all of them as invaders as per history. We cannot justify a particular group as native. --AntanO 10:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Antan, The link you have given me a (Sinhalese_language#History) non reliable as it is Wikipedia page. but it has mentioned that Sinhalese Prakrit was used until 3rd century CE. It doesn't mean that Sinhalese language history starts from 3rd century CE as you said at the beginning of the conversation. The article further says that the oldest Sinhalese Prakrit inscriptions found are from the third to second century BCE following the arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Pls read the article carefully.

In Sri Lanka, our history (I mean all of us) is mainly set out by the ancient chronicles like Mahavamsa, Culavamsa, Rajaveliya, etc, as well as over 4,000 stone inscriptions throughout the country. They give considerable details about our history from 3rd century BC and less reliably back to the 6th century BC. Depends on these details historians have proved or are still proving these facts are either correct or not by searching the relevant archaeological evidences. That is the reason why some chronicles are considered unreliable by the historians. That is the normal and accepted method. Therefore we can not change or modify the fixed history (proved by the historians and archaeologists) as our personal judgments and opinions like you are saying (What do you mean by native? Many of them came from India. I consider all of them as invaders as per history. We cannot justify a particular group as native). In Wikipedia we depend on provable things and here we shouldn't talk about our personal arguments. As an example, recently a Chief Minister of a Sri Lankan province said that Devanampiya Tissa was a Tamil king. But these kind of statements are not historically supported by any of chronicle or archaeological evidences but just political statements.--L Manju (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Brahmi script (3rd century BCE to 5th century CE) is root for many Indian languages including Sinhalese. Likewise, Sinhalese Prakrit was part of Sinhalese language development. It is hard to separate Tamil, Sinhalese or Indian languages from Brahmi or Prakrit. Therefore, it does not mean language of Anuradhapura Kingdom (377 BC) was Sinhalese. But, later it had Tamil and Sinhalese as per historical record. Therefore, it is wrong to highlight Sinhalese only as solo language. I would suggest to add Tamil too, and give a note about language system in 377 BC. --AntanO 03:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Language and scripts are two things. Pls do not confuse it. What do you mean by this It is hard to separate Tamil, Sinhalese or Indian languages from Brahmi or Prakrit. Do you have references to prove this statement or don't you know that Tamil and Sinhalese languages are come from two separated families. What is your real intention here? First you said that Sinhalese language history starts from 3rd century CE and now saying it is hard to separate Tamil, Sinhalese or Indian languages from Brahmi or Prakrit. Here we are not talking about the scripts. Do you know what is the first Tamil inscription found in Sri Lanka which mentions about a Tamil King in Jaffna? --L Manju (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

//don't you know that Tamil and Sinhalese languages are come from two separated families.// See Brahmic_scripts#Comparison. Ok, I think you don't understand my point. I don't like to discuss further unless there is an expert or linguist. //What is your real intention here?// I can repeat it to you. --AntanO 06:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The link you gave me (Brahmic_scripts#Comparison) about the scripts. Seemed that you haven't understood the difference between the language and scripts.--L Manju (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If you conclude that I don't understand, I can guess you missed to see the relation between language and script. --AntanO 09:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

" Many of them came from India. I consider all of them as invaders as per history". None of Sinhalese came from India. according to history the Sinhalese ethnic group was formed in Sri Lanka. It's actually tamils who are invaders. First tamil kings conquered here multiple times, secondly tamil slaves were brought here by British. So tamils are not natives to Sri Lanka at all. Just because you tamils try to change Sinhalese history in Wikipedia by twisting facts doesn't mean you can change the truth too. Maybe You should worry about your own history in Tamil nadu in next time instead of flooding Sinhalese historical articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.201.38 (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

[Evolution of Sinhala] It is generally accepted by serious scholars (including Sinhalese ones) that the Sinhala language first appeared about the third century CE (AD for those who prefer the old Christocentric convention). For a detailed debate and discussion of its origins and development, please see (1) Gunawardana, R. A. L. H, ‘People of the Lion’, Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities, vol. V:1 & 2, 1979 (pp. 01-36) and (2) Dharmadasa, K.N.O., ‘The People of the Lion: ethnic identity, ideology and historical revisionism in contemporary Sri Lanka’ in Sri Lanka Journal of Humanities vol. XV 1989 (pp 1-35). 112.135.211.191 (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you conclude me as Tamil? I see how premature you are to judge people and history! LOL! BTW, Sinhalese came from India too. --AntanO 02:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate Behaviour of Obi2canibe

You constantly reverted my edits without showing any valid reference to claims you mentioned.This has been mentioned previously by another editor in this article.You never discussed with me about the facts you removed and started a pointless edit war with me. V3arrior (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Tamil was not a common language in Anuradhapura Kingdom

Tamil was not a common language in Anuradhapura Kingdom as it's before the establishment of the Jaffna kingdom. Tamil rulers came to sri lanka in this time period as invaders just like how South India was invaded by Parakramabahu 1, but were driven back by Sinhalese monarchs eventually; hence it's not appropriate to use here Tamil as a common language in this particular time period. According to Cambridge dictionary, the term common is defined as "the same in a lot of places or for a lot of people:", but there is no evidence that there were many Tamils in Anuradhapura Kingdom at that time. Sinhalese monarchs ruled the kingdom for 454 years, whereas all the Tamil rulers combined ruled 144 years, but the ruling time of some of the rulers were limited to a few years to make a drastic change in the society. There was no evidence of mass Tamil migration or a Sinhalese population genocide committed by Tamil rulers in this time period for Tamil to become a common language in Anuradhapura Kingdom. It's only fair to say Tamil as a language used by people in this time period instead of a common language as Sinhalese. Ceylonpedia (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with you.There are lots of misinformation in the pages about Sri Lankan history V3arrior (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What was the language when Tamil rulers was ruling from Anuradhapura? Any reference? --AntanO 22:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Tamil rulers spoke Tamil,But they ruled for a very brief time compared to sinhalase. They didn't have time to convert the culture of natives. I read the reference you added.It does mention tamil language was present but it was never a common language.There aren't any known tamil literary works or any thing from that era that prove Tamil was a common language. V3arrior (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you say Tamil rulers used Sinhalase as common and administrative language? If so, how? --AntanO 01:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

They probably did.On the otherhand,there aren't any evidence to prove that Tamil was a common and administrative language.Like I said before,Your reference does mention tamil language was present,but not a commonly used language.Can you mention any other source that clearly dictates that Tamil was largely used by people in Anuradhapura Kingdom?It isn't fair to use de Silva's book as a reference to that.Some Tamils were allowed to live under the rule of Sinhala kings even after the invasion was defeated. But they were very few compared to Native Sinhalese. V3arrior (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

//They probably did.// reference? --AntanO 19:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Please mention reference for your own point.The book you mentioned cannot be used as ref to that.Learn the meaning of the word"common". V3arrior (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed your reference.It doesn't directly support the claim mentioned.Try to find a reference yourself rather than using a tool. V3arrior (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Do not vandalize while discussing!

//The book you mentioned cannot be used as ref to that// Why? Give me the reason? --AntanO 17:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please show me a one place where the book directly mentions that Tamil was a common language.I read the chapters that describe the Anuradhapura Kingdom.Yet I couldn't find a phrase that proves your statement.That's why I removed it. V3arrior (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You are in double stand. You said the book is not ok for reference then another question. It seems you are not here to make encyclopedia. Why do you jump to new question while ignoring my question? See above my question and response, then I can response you.--AntanO 01:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Still,I've found no source that directly states Tamil invaders used Sinhala.But that doesn't prove your point either.If you have access to this book,I suggest you to read it again.It appears that you are taking just a guess that tamil became a common language just because some invader controlled the kingdom for a short time.I answered your question now and please answer mine.State a single place in de Silva's book that directly explains Tamil was common. V3arrior (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

What you have seen/read in the book? I think you are not read it. If so, you wouldn't argue here. I have given reference and you should deny if there is no proof to the statement, and so far you did not deny the context in the book. Note: I have mention the page no in ref.--AntanO 01:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW, this is former country and 'syntax is for "former country". Dutch Ceylon used Dutch? Are you going to to ask reference for Dutch? Dutch was common language, specially rulers used Dutch since they are not native and you can't ask to speak local language. They primary statement and government orders should have been written in Dutch in in local language. This is not guess, but fact.--AntanO 01:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken,p.100 is about Portuguese incursions.Anuradhapura is a Sinhalese kingdom,Just because an invader king used tamil,There are no evidence that he forced locals to use it.Talking about Dutch Ceylon, "should have been written it Dutch?"any reference please?I say again, the count of Tamils in Anuradhapura was no where near the count of sinhalese.Even the book states that.Can you prove otherwise?I suggest to you that you should read more about Ancient Sri Lankan Kingdoms from other websites.The "common"word should be only used if there were large Tamil communities situated in Anuradhapura,par with Sinhalese. V3arrior (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Also Dutch in Dutch Ceylon would fall into official languages category,not common languages. V3arrior (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Read the reference first and then tell your opinion. Otherwise, get admin help. --AntanO 17:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I told you that I read it.Unless I'm reading a different edition p.100 is about Portuguese incursions.Maybe I should get help from a sensible person instead of debating a stubborn person like you. V3arrior (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If you read wrong area, that's not my fault. BTW, you are not authorized to talk about me. Mind you words or I have to repose you in different way. WP:APR --AntanO 18:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Then please give me the right page number or change the page number if it's wrong. V3arrior (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Read the page again and tell me what was wrong. From Anaikoddai seal to other inscriptions and coins are from Anuradhapura period. If Tamil was not significant / common language, why do they produce coin in/with Tamil? Further, read the historical roots of Tamil identity, more than 150 Tamil inscriptions in Anuradhapura period, Tamil loan words mainly relating to administrative ranks and military service which occur often in the texts of Sinhalese inscriptions, The Munnesvaram Tamil Inscription of Parākramabāhu VI, The Kingdom of Jaffna - Propaganda? Or History?, Evolution of an Ethnic Identity: The Tamils in Sri Lanka c.300 BCE to c.1200 CE, etc. --AntanO 02:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

How many times I have to tell you,page 100 is under the heading of "Portuguese incursion:first phase".It has no relation to Anuradhapura kingdom.And I got to tell you,the articles you mentioned are very biased and opiniated.Talking about the coins,they were not minted in Sri Lanka but in south India.The Tamil merchants brought the coins with them.Also Chinese and Roman coins were found in excavations.Are you going to say that they were minted here too? V3arrior (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Also please be aware of the situation of modern Sri Lanka,where some Tamils claim they are the natives of this island.But this theory is rejected by Sri Lankan scholars,who state the the whole theory is a ridiculous fabrication to create a ethnic tension .The articles you mentioned very likely to be associated with that. V3arrior (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

//The Tamil merchants brought the coins with them// Is it bias story too? LOL. This is Wikipedia, and I do concern on encyclopedia, and not about Sri Lankan politics. I do aware Sinhalese and Tamil criticize each others as bias. As per common man, I see Sinhalese were came from India, and Tamils claim on Naga people (Lanka) is still disputation. Be aware Ethnic cleansing has some forms including erasing history, manipulating, etc, and Tamil says Sinhalese do the same to them. BTW, it is out of subject. I have given enough sources and read it. It is up to you to reject as bias, but I do concern encyclopedia. --AntanO 21:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You evading my question btw.Please give me the correct page number.is it p.100 or another? V3arrior (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with you? Page is 100 as it is in reference. Sub heading is "religion and culture". --AntanO 14:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I've got the pdf from archive.org.It was published by University of California press.Also I've found Religion and culture sub heading in page 92,not page 100.And it doesn't mention anything about Tamils in Anuradhapura.It describes The south Indian influence on architecture and religion.So I don't see any relation between that and this claim. V3arrior (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I have given clear reference as per Wiki guidance, and the book was published by Penguin Books, India & ISBN 9558095923. If you read wrong book/page/anything else, that's not my problem. Don't waste time here form blind spot. --AntanO 07:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

How can I response when a user drag discussion for long time and not an idea to compromise while all the reference are given in talk page and article? Please check user's contribution and motivation, and it seems propaganda as the user directly blame a particular ethic and not here to create an encyclopedia. --AntanO 07:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

User conduct issues are not handled on article talk pages, you may start a discussion at WP:ANI. I might suggest that you explore dispute resolution measures first. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It's the same book.The edition maybe different..Why do you lie?And please tell me where did you get that edition,so I can compare the two of them and detect any difference. V3arrior (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Search. Don't talk like preschool pupil. I have given reference with ISBN. --AntanO 15:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Be careful.Now you are the one who's insulting me.If you continue to do that,I'll report you.Don't make this personal.Btw, I'm 100% sure that I read the same book that you read.Publishers maybe different,but author is the same.What is the phrase or paragraph in page 100 you used to prove point? V3arrior (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are not familiar with how to handle words, you should improve as you directly criticize me rather than topic. 2nd time you indirectly point me by saying Why do you lie?. Is this mature style of discussion? While the reference alive, you ask where did you get that edition. Actually, I don't understand your point. Isn't premature question? I should have reported you as per above suggestion. Why don't you understand about reference? You may get ideas on WP:RD. Also, I have gave more link in this discussion. I don't like to add more reference to the particular point. If you need some more, I can add how Tamil was influential in Anuradhapura Kingdom, and get some help in references from ta.wiki. --AntanO 02:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I finally found the version you mentioned and checked page 100.Obviously,you must have picked up that paragraph that mentions the intrusive impact by Hinduism and Tamil language on the religion and culture after the chola invasion.Lol,did you know that Anuradhapura kingdom ceased to exist after the conquest?The paragraph describes the events that happened after the fall of Anuradhapura.And the funniest thing is the chapter title "The polonnaruwa kingdom".So what's the point of mentioning Tamil as a common language in Anuradhapura era?And some of the references you mentioned above are not relevant to Anuradhapura era at all.Btw,I have decided to seek another editor's assistance on this matter. V3arrior (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Haha, you was struggling nearly 15 days to figure out the reference? And, I think still you're not in track. --AntanO 03:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Now I've made it clear that the reference is not relevant at all,why don't change it?maybe Tamil was influencial,but it doesn't mean Tamil was common.Google the meaning of word "common". V3arrior (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

And mind that I don't want to hear your opinion about me.Just focus on the discussion. V3arrior (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Who cares you and me neither? Don't teach me English and I know where to get meaning than Googling. Isn't it unfocusing discussion? If you don't like to use it under "Common", let's use it under "Official". Another point: As per the article, until 267 BC Hinduism was there and probably it could have been practiced by Tamils. If Hinduism was religion in Anuradhapura Kingdom, why can't be Tamil? --AntanO 01:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You can't say that for sure. Sinhalese also practiced Hinduism prior to the arrival of Buddhism.Buddhism arrived during the reign of Devanampiya Tissa of Anuradhapura.And there were many minor beliefs during early periods of Anuradhapura.Take a look at this. https://www.rsisinternational.org/virtual-library/papers/the-pre-buddhist-religious-beliefs-in-ancient-sri-lanka/amp/ V3arrior (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

So, we have to add "immoral religious worship" under religion. Also, add Elu language or pre-Sinhala languages (Prakrit). --AntanO 03:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah.It's better if we also add the time period they were used,to avoid confusion. V3arrior (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

And what to do about about Tamil language? Should it be removed or something? V3arrior (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I will give some feedbacks.--AntanO 02:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Was too busy for editing in past days. So is it okay to remove the reference for Tamil language under WP: IRRELEVANT ? V3arrior (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No need to remove as per above discussion. --AntanO 07:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Why?I proved that paragraph's content wasn't about Anuradhapura kingdom. V3arrior (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Issues

• The article claims in wiki-voice, prince Vijaya (543–505 BC) arrived in Sri Lanka, having been banished from his homeland in India. He eventually brought the island under his control and established himself as king.

• To assert this, as an undisputed fact without clarifications, is quite ahistorical. Vijaya is a legendary character of Mahavamsa traditions and his existence is not corroborated by any hard evidence.

• Consult Anonymous (2011). "A Tamil Hindu Vijaya: Yalpana Vaipava Malai". In Holt, John Clifford (ed.). The Sri Lanka Reader: History, Culture, Politics. London: Duke University Press. pp. 26–29. for a different rendering of the same myth AND Gunawardhana, R. A. L. H. “The People of the Lion: The Sinhala Identity and Ideology in History and Historiography.” In Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict. Edited by Jonathan Spencer, 45–85. London and New York: Routledge, 1990. for a detailed discussion of the Vijaya myth and its (sociopolitical) purposes AND Strathern, Alan (2009). "The Vijaya Origin Myth of Sri Lanka and the Strangeness of Kingship". Past & Present (203): 3–28. ISSN 0031-2746.
• Consult

• Die Gegenwart der Geschichte - Altsinghalesische Chroniken und ihr moderner Gebrauch. Vortrag am 29.1.1998 anläßlich des Kolloquiums "Sri Lanka: 50 Jahre Unabhängigkeit". Tilman Frasch
• Kiribamune, Sirima. “The Mahāvaṁsa: A Study of the Ancient Historiography of Sri Lanka.” In Senarat Paranativana Commemoration Volume. Edited by Leelananda Prematilleke, Karthigesu Indrapala, and J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, 125–136. Studies in South Asian Culture 7. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1978.
• Bechert, Heinz. “The Beginnings of Buddhist Historiography: Mahavamsa and Political Thinking.” In Religion and Legitimation of Power in Sri Lanka. Edited by Bardwell L. Smith, 1–12. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
• Walters, Jonathan S. “Buddhist History: The Sri Lankan Pāli Vaṃsas and Their Community.” In Querying the Medieval: Text and the History of Practices in South Asia. By Ronald Inden, Jonathan Walters, and Daud Ali, 99–164. Oxford University Press, 2000

For more than a century scholars have relied upon the Pali Vamsas—DTpavamsa (Dpv), the "Chronicle of the Island" (early fourth century), Mahavamsa (Mhv), the "Great Chronicle" (a fifth-century revision of Dipavamsa), and Vamsatthappakasini (VAP), the "early medieval" commentary on Mahavamsa—as "primary sources." From them, they have gleaned countless "historical facts" now to be found in the histories of ancient India and Sri Lanka. I wish to challenge this "common-sense" understanding of history in the Pali Vamsas. The idea that the facts of the past recorded in the Vamsas constitute "history" is a relatively recent idea, forged by George Tumour during the late 1830s. Revised and expanded by philologists such as Wilhelm Geiger, but never dismissed, this idea continues to frame scholarly study of the Vamsas.

Here I suggest that "history"—thought about the past in the then-present—proceeded in pre-colonial Sri Lanka within an episteme (to borrow M. Foucault's useful term) consisting of a temporal scheme and anthropology quite foreign to modern sensibilities, one that leads me to consider the Vamsas as "successions" of the Buddha's presence rather than as mere "chronicles" of events.

• Seneviratne, H. L. (1989). IDENTITY AND THE CONFLATION OF PAST AND PRESENT. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice, 25, 3–17.
• Berkwitz, Stephen C. Buddhist History in the Vernacular: The Power of the Past in Late Medieval Sri Lanka. Brill’s Indological Library. Leiden, The Netherlands, and Boston: E. J. Brill, 2004.
• Gunawardhana, R. A. L. H. “The People of the Lion: The Sinhala Identity and Ideology in History and Historiography.” In Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict. Edited by Jonathan Spencer, 45–85. London and New York: Routledge, 1990.

for a critique of interpreting Sri Lankan chronicles as objective history, by professional/academic historians.

• An interesting summary:

The Sinhalese are an ethnic identity that evolved in Sri Lanka through the assimilation of various segmentary/tribal and ethnic communities that occupied the island at the beginning of the EIA [early Iron Age], about five or six centuries before the Common Era. Long distance trade brought traders who spoke Prakrit, the lingua franca of the South Asian region at that time. Shortly before the third century BCE, it is possible that Buddhist and Jaina monks, too, arrived in the island in the wake of trade. This would have strengthened the position of Prakrit as the language of the elite. Later, the adoption of Buddhism by the ruler at Anuradhapura and the people under his rule, the organization of a strong Buddhist church and the use of Prakrit as the written language of the elites helped to forge different communities together and to evolve a common language with elements from the local languages.
— Indrapala, K. (2011). "Tamil Identity in Ancient Sri Lanka". In Holt, John Clifford (ed.). The Sri Lanka Reader: History, Culture, Politics. London: Duke University Press. p. 70.

• Coningham, Robin A. E. (1995-10-01). "Monks, caves and kings: A reassessment of the nature of early Buddhism in Sri Lanka". World Archaeology. 27 (2): 222–242. ISSN 0043-8243.
• The same issue continues to manifest across multiple sections, In 377 BC, King Pandukabhaya (437–367 BC) made it his capital and developed it into a prosperous city. Anuradhapura (Anurapura) was named after the minister who first established the village and after a grandfather of Pandukabhaya who lived there. [..] He defeated 32 rulers in different parts of the country. [..] The first invasion recorded in the history of the country is during the reign of Suratissa (247–237 BC) [...] The country was invaded again in 103 BC by five Dravidian chiefs, [...]

• Once again, Pandukabhaya and his ministers are legendary characters or rather, motifs. As are Suratissa, Guththika, Asela, The Five Dravidians, and The Six Dravidians.

• Establishing a chronology is what concerns historians most, when studying any dynasty/kingdom. Especially for ones which (apparently) ran for over a millennia.

• Our article skips any minimal probing into chronology. Instead, we have meaningless paragraphs like, Saddha Tissa (137–119 BC), Mahaculi Mahatissa (77–63 BC), Vasabha (67–111), Gajabahu I (114–136), Dhatusena (455–473), Aggabodhi I (571–604) and Aggabodhi II (604–614) [7 rulers for 750 years?] were among the rulers who held sway over the entire country after Dutthagamani and Valagamba. Rulers from Kutakanna Tissa (44–22 BC) to Amandagamani (29–19 BC) also managed to keep the whole country under the rule of the Anuradhapura Kingdom.

• The DYK for this article was that during the ancient Anuradhapura Kingdom of Sri Lanka the slaughter of cattle was a crime punishable by death?.

• To start with, the Kingdom of Anuradhapura (if such a thing indeed exists; it doesn't) spanned over a thousand years. So, was this ban in effect since beginning?
• Young, Ruth; Coningham, Robin; Nalinda, Kalum; Perera, Jude; Khan, Hafeez (1999). "Faunal Remains". In Coningham, Robin (ed.). Anuradhapura: The British-Sri Lankan Excavations at Anuradhapura Salagha Watta 2. BAR International Series (pre-2020): 1508. Vol. II: The Artefacts. Archaeopress. p. 525. ISBN 9781841710365. writes,

  On the basis of cut marks from the Gedige cattle bones and other material from the Arikamedu faunal remains, Deraniyagala (ibid.: 157) discusses Wheeler's interpretation of beef-eating in Sri Lanka. Beef is understood to have been eaten on the island until AD 100, with the major taboo on beef occurring during the mid to late historic period in association with an increase in Hindu influence.

• The narrative of the decline is insufficient, simplistic, and wrong.

• Consult Strickland, Keir Magalie (2017). A Time of Change: Questioning the “Collapse" of Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. Archaeopress. ISBN 978-1-78491-633-6. JSTOR j.ctv1pzk1cj.

• More soon.

• Absent any resolution, I will delist this GA. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Overview scholarship

• Biedermann, Zoltán; Strathern, Alan, eds. (2017). London: UCL Press. ISBN 978-1-911307-82-2. JSTOR j.ctt1qnw8bs. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Anuradhapura Kingdom/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• See the discussion at Talk:Anuradhapura_Kingdom#Issues. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.